Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 6;4(1):e000122.
doi: 10.1136/bmjsit-2021-000122. eCollection 2022.

Impact of prostate biopsy technique on outcomes of the precision prostatectomy procedure

Affiliations

Impact of prostate biopsy technique on outcomes of the precision prostatectomy procedure

Ralph Grauer et al. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impact of iterative changes in preoperative and postoperative biopsy techniques on the outcomes of men undergoing the precision prostatectomy procedure. Precision prostatectomy is a novel surgical treatment for prostate cancer that aims to maximally preserve erectogenic nerves via partial preservation of the prostate capsule.

Design: Retrospective.

Setting: Single tertiary care center.

Participants: This study included 120 patients who consented to undergo prostate cancer treatment with the precision prostatectomy procedure. Patients were originally enrolled in one of two separate prospective protocols studying precision prostatectomy.

Interventions: Preoperatively, 60 patients were screened with transrectal (TR) biopsy and 60 were screened by transperineal (TP) biopsy. Ultimately, 117 patients underwent precision prostatectomy. Of the 43 postoperative biopsies, 19 were TR; 17 were TP with ultrasound; and 7 were TP with microultrasound (mUS).

Main outcome measures: Preoperatively, we evaluated whether the transition to TP biopsy was associated with differences in postoperative treatment failure defined as a neoplasm-positive postoperative biopsy. Postoperative biopsies were compared with respect to their ability to sample the remnant tissue, specifically percentage of cores positive for prostate tissue.

Results: Preoperatively, 9/60 (15%) positive postoperative biopsies occurred in the TR group and 6/60 (10%) in the TP group; Kaplan-Meier survival estimates did not differ between groups (p=0.69 by log rank). Postoperatively, the numbers of cores positive for prostate tissue were 99/160 (62%), 63/107 (59%), and 36/39 (92%) in the TR biopsy, TP with ultrasound, and TP with mUS groups, respectively; this difference was statistically significant versus the rate in the TR and standard TP groups (p=0.0003 and 0.0002).

Conclusion: We found no significant improvement in patient screening, preoperatively-though limited by small sample size and relatively short follow-up. The incorporation of high-frequency mUS for postoperative biopsies improved the ability to sample the remnant tissue with a higher efficiency.

Keywords: Robotic Surgical Procedures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A) Three-dimensional reconstructed view of the KOELIS Trinity system used for preoperative TP biopsies. In this case, the MRI targets are the yellow spheres and the needle throws are the green cylinders around the circumferential edge of the prostate. (B) Ultrasound image of a preoperative TP needle biopsy sampling the prostate. TP, transperineal.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Traditional ultrasound imaging of the prostatic remnant. (B) High-resolution microultrasound image of the prostatic remnant.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier survival curve comparing transperineal and transrectal preoperative screening biopsy, with respect to their ability to avoid treatment failure defined as neoplasm-positive postoperative biopsy.

References

    1. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. . Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 2018;199:683–90. 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. . EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618–29. 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. . Patient-Reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1425–37. 10.1056/NEJMoa1606221 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. . Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405–17. 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan K-H, et al. . Long-Term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:436–45. 10.1056/NEJMoa1209978 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources